Brain Science or Vulcan Logic Pitfalls? - Page 2

Bee:   an 'honest response' on the empathy issue ?
Ok - I watched the Fallon video.  (I don't recall seeing
it anywhere before, either, BTW.)

My reactions were 1]  what was that old phrase about
"Only in California" ?  His (apparent) 'scattergun approach'
to this research worried me a bit - who studies so many
angles on a topic all at once, as his description of his job
implies ?  Who uses their own family as 'controls' - his
word, though it didn't sound too much like 'controls' to me,
although I accept I am no professional social scientist.

2]  Yes we want the people we train to kill for 'us' as soldiers
not to be  "too" empathetic -  but is teaching soldiers not to
overemphasise the concerns of  'the enemy SOLDIERS'
really  unentangleable from having some concern about
the women, children, sick etc in those 'enemy' communities
as distinct from their armies ?  Or training/brainwashing them 
so that they lose inhibitions with their own civilian population
when they come home ?

He may well be the 'unlucky' sod in his own family who inherited
all the sociopathic / psychopathic alleles,  but the very fact that he
can then say, effectively, " Well knowing that, and checking out
others' opinions of my behaviour, means I can adjust my behaviour
so I appear more caring, even if I don't feel it"  surely shows this
physical, genetic  disability can be to some extent overcome, at
least in humans (!), ...  but you/we need to be analytical to achieve
that correction.

Travels, 

Your opinion isn't overly important.  You just happen to respond in a manner that makes you think it is important to me.

I will get to this subject at hand.  Believe me.

Hundmutter,

I'll get my coffee first and dive into your response, in as timely a manner as I can. Some topics do require my full attention. lol

Hundmutter,

Thank you for your patience, lol, as it is now after 5 pm on Friday night... lol  .

 

 an 'honest response' on the empathy issue ?
Ok - I watched the Fallon video.  (I don't recall seeing
it anywhere before, either, BTW.)

I actually liked this first bit you wrote, above.

To clear up where I posted this before, well, here goes, somewhere in the middle of page 3  : http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/forum.read?mnr=671411-interesting-facts-for-believers&pagen=3


I think your very first sentence is extremely telling.   My instincts tell me you might not think empathy is trustworthy? Would you also think, more often than not, "empathy" relied upon, is a lie being told to oneself, when you say it like that? Is that how you are taking "empathy" as a basis for decision making?


....And yes, I only want an honest response from everybody, lol  ... This isn't a trick question, it is just a question, BTW and LOL

My reactions were 1]  what was that old phrase about
"Only in California" ?  His (apparent) 'scattergun approach'
to this research worried me a bit - who studies so many
angles on a topic all at once, as his description of his job
implies ?  Who uses their own family as 'controls' - his
word, though it didn't sound too much like 'controls' to me,
although I accept I am no professional social scientist.
 

I think it was simply an opportunity that presented itself in light of having access to the cutting edge newest technology, and he found a way to apply it to his family's needs. What appeals to me so much, but has become a total disappointment with talking about this on this board, is the absolute serendipity of the selection and outcome. This makes it the most perfectly, unintentionally done blind test for such results. I think that is what you call it. 

One could not have planned something like this to happen in a million years! The beauty of it is so appealing to me! The element of contamination by prejudice was non existant, can't it be agreed?



 

 

2]  Yes we want the people we train to kill for 'us' as soldiers
not to be  "too" empathetic -  but is teaching soldiers not to
overemphasise the concerns of  'the enemy SOLDIERS'
really  unentangleable from having some concern about
the women, children, sick etc in those 'enemy' communities
as distinct from their armies ?  Or training/brainwashing them 
so that they lose inhibitions with their own civilian population
when they come home ?
 

What struck me as an interest is, there is always a certain percentage of non-emphatic types within a society. It is only at certain times, and perhaps more relevant for today, that there are many modern job cultures, where it is advantageous to exhibit a lack of emphatic traits.

And I would say we all lack empathetic traits at one time or another, it's all just a matter of degree and circumstance.  When you are forced to make a moral choice, no matter which choice you make, you lack empathy.  You choose what you think is right, thus having no empathy for anyone who disagrees and could be hurt by the choice you deem correct.   The biggest difference between people who have empathy and those who lack it, is their ease in making that choice.

It does also clearly demonstrates that non-empathetic people can lead normal lives and never become serial killers.  Beyond that, his study is anything but complete and a little too coincidental for me.  Not saying that the body of the story is untrue, but that he found it by accident might be for the sales appeal.  I'd find it more likely that he knew first and then mapped it.  Odds are that like that though, even unlikely things happen sometimes, you just never know with each roll of the dice.  Two somebodies just hit the Powerball against all odds, didn't they?

Bee - Video - oh yeah that was where it was, I forgot.  I didnt stop to watch it
then 'cos other stuff (off PDB) demanded my attention.  I only skimmed that
thread,  but I was interested in the questions around people in prison  v.
population as a whole ...

Only in CA / scattergun approach:  I didn't just mean the point about using
his family members but his whole, quite long, intro in the vid, about the
work he is doing.  Maybe watch that first part again and you might see what
I'm reacting to ?

Take your point about using opportunities that come up, to get the most
knowledge out of any situation - but I do feel from what I have heard over
the years about "scientific method" that this use of assessments of one's
'nearest & dearest' would be regarded as 'not the done thing  / not
disinterested or dispassionate enough.  Strange you mentioned
prejudice as though it could not exist under those circumstances - but
I think it could.  Interesting scenario:  maybe Fallon had found he wasn't
the one who copped for all the rogue genes in one body, maybe it was his
sibling instead.  Some interesting conversations could follow that !

While I applaud your love of spontenaity,  (sp?),  I'm not sure I can agree
with you its so useful in 'research'. 

Agree with you that in our culture as it currently stands there are occupations
which almost force people working in them to become impervious to the way
other ppl feel about what they are doing.  I guess that was always true to an
extent, with military or finance jobs for example,  but I think it has got wider-
spread and worse, maybe as part of other changes in modern society ?  But
that's all generalisation;  a pitfall when it comes to taking broad brush strokes
to e.g. what 'prisoners' feel or don't feel, regret or not, etc.  Since there are SO
many variables.  Maybe that's partly why I have a distrustful nature - when it
comes to expressions of empathy [ or many other things,  lol].

I still feel that 'empathy' can be useful.  For example in Fallon deciding to behave
more 'caringly' towards those around him;  that took some analytical thought
about his situation.  I don't see that his deciding to do that made him more  (or
less) prone to religious belief, though.

Bee,

On the surface, if perfected, this may have unlimited potential.

I mean, some day they may be able to spot  brain problems in children and possibly correct them.

Also they may be able to tell children what field that they would excel in as an adult. I'm assuming they would be able to evaluate all portions of the brain at some time with this technology.

As far as empathy I would say it definitely effects decision making, putting the emphasis on someone having way too much empathy and a lack of analytical IMO would not be making sound finacial decisions at times. Just because something sounds good doesn't mean it is affordable. 

I would be interested in seeing brain data on people who went bankrupt and whether they are heavy on empathy and somewhat lacking on analytical.

Very interesting subject IMO.

I agree Ninja, that is why I find this so interesting, the tip of the iceberg in discovery, a new way to think about the order in the chaos that is the brain!

(Hey... this just came to me, lol, I think I just stumbled on to the "opposite of God"... it is "Chaos"...!  Eureka!)

Brain imaging is so new in terms of what has been observable to date, don't you think?  So the theories can be uncharted, and are so available to be made. I find that is what makes this topic interesting.

However, bankruptcy is not a good example for me, for this type of thing, there are too many varibles that would make it a preferred option, even if undesireable. And lots of those options could be out of someone's control. IMHO

It might explain someone who is frivolous with spending  and even a shopaholic type that would ignore debts to the point of bankruptcy, that I can see. That would be a function of low to no empathy for stealing from a business. A business, too, would support a nameless oppressive entity that deserved to be beaten, I suppose for a non-empathetic mind.

But I wander, lol!

Hundmutter and Travels,

What got me was the very end. It was so perfect. It could not be contrived, when he said, "I don't care." 

Are you both familiar with the image of the snake eating its own tail? The Ouroboros?  



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros